lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan McKinley <>
Subject Re: discussion about release frequency.
Date Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:44 GMT
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Robert Muir <> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ryan McKinley <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Mark Miller <>
>> wrote:
>> > I can see leaving the build support around for those committers that
>> > like and want to support Maven - I'm sure it wouldn't be easy to rip it
>> > out short term. But I still think it should be completely outside of the
>> > RM's cares (as Yonik claims it is now - I'd like to see a bit of
>> > consensus on it though). The RM does the Lucene release - someone steps
>> > up and does the Maven stuff or they don't.
>> >
>> I agree with this -- let us make them two tasks.  However can the RM
>> run the "generate-maven-artifacts" task and put the results somewhere
>> for someone else to deploy?
> I won't speak for anyone else, but the .pom files are signed by the RM's
> key.
> I checked to be sure, for example:
> as stated earlier, i dont want to sign anything that is incorrect.
> I know the true purpose of signing, but i'm not willing to put my release
> key on these things, unless there is automated testing.
> is maven incompatible with unit testing?

To automatically test if the maven files work, we would need to run
maven...  that seems like a non-starter for many people.

We could easily add a maven test project -- but for it to be 'real' it
needs to use maven.  I'll happily volunteer to write it.

If you are worried about the signing part...  can we keep the
maven.dist folder out of the signing task?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message